20170809Staff Response to Simplot Joint Motion.pdf

DAPHNE HUANG
DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL
IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
PO BOX 83720
BOISE, IDAHO 83720-0074
[phone]
IDAHO BAR NO. 8370
IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION
OF IDAHO POWER COMPANY TO
REVIEW THE SURROGATE AVOIDABLE
RESOURCE (SAR) METHODOLOGY FOR
CALCULATING PUBLISHED AVOIDED
COST RATES
Street Address for Express Mail:
472 W. WASHINGTON
BOISE, IDAHO 83702.5918
Attorney for the Commission Staff
BEFORE THE IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
CASE NO. GNR-8.I7-02
STAFF'RESPONSE TO
SIMPLOT'S JOINT EXPEDITED
MOTION
This case was initiated after Idaho Power objected to Commission Staff s proposed 2017
annual update to published avoided cost rates for contracts entered between Idaho's electric
utilities and qualifying facility (QF) projects under the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act
(PURPA). Idaho Power asserted that Staff should have used the EIA's Henry Hub forecast
rather than the EIA's Mountain Region forecast in making its calculations. The Commission
approved Staff s proposal as reasonable, but directed the Commission Secretary to accept Idaho
Power's objection as an application to initiate a generic proceeding to consider Idaho Power's
proposed change. Order Nos. 33773 ,33778 (Notice of generic proceeding). The Commission
received and granted petitions to intervene by Avista Corporation, the Idaho Hydroelectric
Power Producers Trust d/b/a Idahydro, Renewable Energy Coalition (REC), the J.R. Simplot
Company, and Tamarack Energy Partnership (TEP). Order Nos. 33788 ,33794,33802,33807,
33809.
On August 2,2017, the Commission issued Notice that it was appropriate to process the
case by Modified Procedure. The Commission noted that the parties had informally conferred
STAFF RESPONSETO SIMPLOT'S
JOINT EXPEDITED MOTION
ll ri rl -g Pit 2: l+\
AUGUST 9,2077I
and did not agree how to process the case. Order No. 33831 at l. However, no party filed a
motion per Rule 202 stating 'oreasons why modified procedure should not be used." Id. at2. On
August 4,2017, Simplot filed an expedited joint protest and joint motion opposing the
Commission's order, and jointly requesting a technical hearing.
A. Simplot's joint expedited motion for technical hearing
Simplot, joined by REC, TEP, and (by later joinder) Idahydro (together, "Movants"), ask
the Commission to vacate its Notice of Modified Procedure, and to schedule technical hearings
in this case. Motion at2; Idahydro Joinder. Movants did not request oral argument, but ask that
the Commission issue a decision on their request "within seven days of this filing." Motion at 2.
They state there is "good cause" for an expedited ruling "to prevent the premature efforts in
preparation of comments that would otherwise be due . . . August 23,2017." Id. at2-3. Movants
note they made good faith efforts to notify all parties of their expedited request before filing the
motion. 1d
In arguing that modified procedure is inappropriate in this case, Movants assert that the
Commission's Notice of Modified Procedure "has not provided the parties with any idea of what
it is 'considering' nor any idea of what it 'proposes to do."' Id. at 4-5 (citing Order No.32212 at
10, in which the Commission found modified procedure was appropriate, and formal hearing
unnecessary, to process a case addressing avoided cost issues under PURPA). Movants further
assert that modified procedure in this case is not in the public interest because the "'issues
presented' are vague and undefined." Id. at 6.
According to Movants, Simplot petitioned to intervene, "noting that Idaho Power's
Objection raises issues associated not only with avoided cost pricing per se, but also with the
prudence determination of the Company's energy conservation and demand response programs."
1d Because "Idaho Power did not object to [Simplot's] Petition to Intervene, . . . the issues in
this docket clearly extend beyond just the proper natural gas forecast to be used in determining
avoided cost rates." 1d.
Movants also argue that a 21-day comment period is inadequate, citing that discovery
from Movants and Staff is not yet complete. Id. at8. Movants request'oat least 45 days for
initial comments and2l days for rebuttal." Id. at9.
STAFF RESPONSETO SIMPLOT'S
JOINT EXPEDITED MOTION 2 AUGUST 9,2017
B. Idaho Power's response
Idaho Power filed a response objecting to Movants' request for technical hearing in this
case. According to Idaho Power, the'oproper scope of this proceeding is limited to the
Commission determining what EIA Annual Energy Outlook natural gas forecast should be
applied to the SAR published avoided cost rates for Idaho Power with the 2017 arnual update."
Idaho Power Response at 5,9. Idaho Power states, "[t]he Commission would be well within its
rights and authority to determine which EIA Annual Energy Outlook natural gas forecast it
intends to use, and publish its standard SAR based rates accordingly with no further process and
procedure under its previously directed automatic update of published avoided cost rates." .Id at
6. However, Idaho Power states it is unclear "as to what the Commission intends with the
treatment of Idaho Power's Response and Objection in Case No. IPC-E-17-07, used as an
application to open a general case for all three utilities" in this case. Id. at 5. Idaho Power states,
"if the Commission's intent is to conduct a proceeding with a much broader scope regarding
changes to the surrogate avoided resource ("SAR") methodology, then a new matter supported
by testimony and a technical hearing may be appropriate." Id. at2.
Idaho Power recommends that the Commission vacate and close this matter, and reopen
IPC-E-17-07. Id. at 8-9. In that case, the Commission entered Final Order No. 33773 approving
Staff s proposed annual SAR avoided cost rates for Idaho Power. Id. Idaho Power proposes that
its objection be processed (presumably after first vacating Final Order No. 33773) by modified
procedure under that docket, Case No. IPC-E-17-07.
C. Avistats response
Avista also filed a response objecting to Movants' requests. Avista asserts Movants'
arguments that modified procedure is inappropriate are without merit. Avista Response at 3. If a
party feels a hearing is required, it "must specifically request a hearing in their written
comments." Id. at 2 (quoting Order No. 33831 at 1). Avista also notes that the Commission has
stated "the sole issue is whether the Commission should use the EIA's Henry Hub forecast
instead of the EIA's Mountain Region forecast in calculating published avoided cost rates each
year." Id. at2-3 (quoting Order No. 33831 at 1). Avista challenges Movants' attempt, through
its intervention, to expand the issues in the proceeding "beyond just the proper natural gas
STAFF RESPONSETO SIMPLOT'S
JOINT EXPEDITED MOTION J AUGUST 9,2077
forecast to be used in determining . . . avoided cost rates," ignoring the Commission's "clearly
articulated statement of the issue in this proceeding." Id. at 3.
D. Commission StafPs response
As an initial matter, Staff agrees that the sole issue in this case, as articulated by the
Commission in Order No. 33831, is whether the Commission should use the EIA's Henry Hub
forecast instead of the EIA's Mountain Region forecast in its annual published avoided cost rate
calculations. Staff notes that under Rule 74, the Commission will grant intervention if doing so
will "not unduly broaden the issues" and may grant intervention "subject to reasonable
conditions." IDAPA 31.01.01.074. Staff recommends that the Commission reaffirm the scope
of the case and clarify that intervenors are limited, per Rule 74,to the one identified issue.
As to Movants' request to set a technical hearing, Staff does not oppose it, with the
understanding that the only issue in the case is which subset of the EIA's natural gas forecast
should be used in Staff s calculations of SAR published avoided cost rates. Nonetheless, Staff
believes it can adequately present its position on the identified issue through modified procedure
and has no objection to the extended comment deadlines proposed by Movants in the event the
Commission keeps modified procedure in place. In fact, due to heavy caseloads and overlapping
deadlines, if the Commission proceeds in this case by modified procedure, Staff asks that the
deadlines be set at 45 days from the date of the Commission's order on this motion for
comments, and2l days after the comment deadline for a reply, if any.
As to Idaho Power's recommendation that the Commission close this docket and reopen
Case No. IPC-E-17-07 to address the Company's objection in that case, Staff does not agree.
Staff has always used the same EIA forecast in calculating SAR avoided cost rates for all three
utilities. Any change to a calculation input for one utility may impact the other utilities. This is
why, when Idaho Power requested a change to the natural gas forecast input, Staff recommended
that the Commission open a generic case - to permit the other utilities to weigh in. Staff believes
this generic proceeding will allow the Commission to decide - in one proceeding, implemented
at the same time - whether to change the natural gas forecast Staff uses in calculating SAR
avoided cost rates for Idaho Power, Avista, and PacifiCorp.
In summary, Staff asks that the scope of the case be limited to "whether the Commission
should use the EIA's Henry Hub forecast instead of the EIA's Mountain Region forecast to
STAFF RESPONSETO SIMPLOT'S
JOINT EXPEDITED MOTION 4 AUGUST 9,2017
calculate published avoided cost rates each year." Order No. 3383 | at2. If the Commission
denies Movants' request to vacate Order No. 33831 (ltlotice of Modified Procedure), Staff asks
that the Commission extend deadlines to 45 days from the date of its order on this motion for
comments, and2I days from the comment deadline for replies, if any. Finally, Staff
recommends that the Commission deny Idaho Power's request to vacate this docket.
Dated at Boise, Idaho, this qb day of Aug tst20t7.
Deputy Attorney General
Umisc/Commenlsl gnrelT .2djh
STAFF RESPONSETO SIMPLOT'S
JOINT EXPEDITED MOTION 5 AUGUST 9,2017
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT I HAVE THIS 9th DAY OF AUGUST 2017,
SERVED THE FOREGOING STAFF RESPONSE TO SIMPLOT'S JOINT
EXPEDITED MOTION, IN CASE NO. GNR-E-17-02, By MATLING A COpy
THEREOF, POSTAGE PREPAID, TO THE FOLLOWING:
MICHAEL ANDREA
SENIOR COLTNSEL
AVISTA UTILITIES
PO BOX 3727
SPOKANE W A 9922
E-mail: michael.andrea@,avistacom.com
DONOVAN E WALKER
IDAHO POWER COMPANY
PO BOX 70
BOISE ID 83707
E-mail: dwalker@,idahopower.com
dockets@ idahopower. com
YVONNE HOGLE
TED WESTON
ROCKY MOUNTAIN POWER
1407 WN TEMPLE STE 330
SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116
E-mail: yvonne.hogle@pacifi corp.com
ted. weston@paci hcorp. com
JEFFREY K LARSEN VP
REGULATION & GOV AFFAIRS
ROCKY MOUNTAIN POWER
I4O7 WN TEMPLE STE 170
SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116
E-mail: ieff. larsen@,pacificorp. com
PETER J RICHARDSON
RICHARDSON ADAMS PLLC
5I5 N 27TH STREET
BOISE ID 83702
E-mail : oeter(Erichardsonadams.com
CLINT KALICH MANAGER
RESOURCE PLANN & ANALYSI
AVISTA UTILITIES
PO BOX 3727
SPOKANE W A 99220
E-mail : [e-mail]
MICHAEL DARRINGTON
IDAHO POWER COMPANY
PO BOX 70
BOISE ID 83707
E-mail : mdarrington@ idahopower. com
DANIEL MacNEIL
ROCKY MOUNTAIN POWER
825 NE MULTNOMAH ST
PORTLAND OR 97232
E-mail : daniel.macniel@pacifi corp.com
DATA REQUEST RESPONSE CENTER
E-MAIL ONLY:
datarequest@pac ifi corp. com
DR DON READING
6070 HILL ROAD
BOISE ID 83703
E-mail: [e-mail]
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
C TOM ARKOOSH
ARKOOSH LAW OFFICES
PO BOX 2900
BOISE ID 83701
E-mail: [e-mail]
IRION SANGER
SANGER LAW PC
1I17 SW 53RD AVE
PORTLAND OR 9721
E-mail: [e-mail]
GREGORY M ADAMS
RICHARDSON ADAMS PLLC
515 N 27TH STREET
BOISE ID 83702
E-mail: [e-mail]
PRESTON N CARTER
MICHAEL C CREAMER
GIVENS PURSLEY LLP
60I W BANNOCK STREET
BOISE ID 83702
E-mail: [e-mail]
mcc@ givenspursley. com
Y
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE